R. v. Spencer

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
• Citation: (1985), 11 O.A.C. 207 (SCC),[1985] 2 CTC 310,48 CR (3d) 265,[1985] 2 SCR 278,21 CCC (3d) 385,21 DLR (4th) 756,[1985] SCJ No 60 (QL),1985 CanLII 4 (SCC),39 DTC 5446,11 OAC 207
• Date: 26 March 1985
• Subject Matter: EVIDENCE,CIVIL RIGHTS

R. v. Spencer (1985), 11 O.A.C. 207 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

R. v. Spencer

(No. 17603)

Indexed As: R. v. Spencer

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.

October 10, 1985.

Summary:

Spencer was called as a Crown witness in a prosecution against a person charged under the Income Tax Act. Spencer, a Canadian citizen and now a Canadian resident, was a former manager of a bank in the Bahamas. Spencer refused to testify about his knowledge relating to specific customers and transactions of the bank, because disclosure of such information was a summary conviction offence under s. 10 of the Bahamian Banks and Trust Companies Regulation Act 1965. The Ontario Provincial Court ordered Spencer to testify. Spencer appealed.

The Ontario Supreme Court in a decision reported in (1982), 8 W.C.B. 111, allowed the appeal and quashed the order compelling Spencer to testify. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in (1983), 145 D.L.R.(3d) 344; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 526, allowed the appeal and restored the original order. Spencer appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and held that Spencer was compelled to testify, notwithstanding the Bahamian statute.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - The Supreme Court of Canada held that to compel a Canadian resident to testify in a Canadian criminal proceeding, where disclosure of his testimony would constitute an offence in another country, did not constitute an infringement of the right to life, liberty and security of the person in s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The court held that the infringement of liberty or security, if any, did not result from the operation of Canadian law, but solely from the operation of the foreign law in the other country - See paragraphs 3 to 4.

Evidence - Topic 5590

Witnesses - Competency and compellability - Compellability where disclosure offence in foreign country - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Canadian resident was compelled to testify in a Canadian criminal proceeding, regardless that disclosure of his testimony would constitute a criminal offence in another country.

Cases Noticed:

Hilton v. Guyot (1895), 159 U.S. 113, refd to. [para. 8].

Application of Chase Manhattan Bank, (1962), 297 F.2d 611 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Banks and Trust Companies Regulation Act, S. Bahamas 1965, sect. 10 [paras. 1, 7].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 7 [paras. 3, 4].

Counsel:

John Sopinka, Q.C., and Donald Houston, for the appellant;

Michael R. Dambrot, Mark L. Jewett and Robert W. Hubbard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on March 26, 1985. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on October 10, 1985, when the following opinions were filed:

La Forest, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 6

Estey, J. - see paragraphs 7 to 10

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., concurred with La Forest, J.